A weak and pathetic statement. We can only do something if we are part of broader international community. Quick is 31 days and still no real plan, just platitudes and the ever present touchy feely comments of people, this time from Libyans. Maybe Al Qaeda Libyans.

Jan. 20, 2013 cannot come fast enough to put this combo Jimmy Carter and Martin Van Buren back onto the street of Chicago to peddle his phony community organizing crap.

This address was fine. What I am sick to death of is his bad mouthing of his predecessor when he is abroad: the none-too-subtle insinuations about past U.S. actions "when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support." Not only are such statement untrue, they are beneath the dignity of the office and frankly unpatriotic. The American president should not criticize his predecessors in public when overseas. That's really not too much to ask. Obama lacks even that hint of class.

If he had acted early he probably could have prevented many civilian deaths. If he had done nothing he could have prevented a few. But by intervening late in the game he seems to have picked the policy guaranteed to kill the most civilians possible.

Jason-- because of the no-fly zone Qadaffi's advance armor was turned back from Benghazi, the rebels were losing and now they are winning (just broke through Ajdabiya today, headed west). You clearly have no grasp on the situation; maybe try to read up on it before shooting your mouth off.

"Approximately 2,200 Marines and sailors with 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, II Marine Expeditionary Force from Camp Lejeune received deployment orders to support the commanders of the U.S. European, African and Central commands, and will leave in April."

franglo: Hmm, by being a terrorism-funding madman who stole all his country's money and oppressed his people? For 42 years?

No. Obama and the other western leaders were perfectly okay with all that. They shook Gadaffi's hand and welcomed him into their society.

Also France, Italy, the UK, the UN, NATO, and the Arab League. "Obama." You really sound dumb.

No one was going to do anything without the US. No one could do anything without the US. To say it is a group behind this which equally shares responsibility sounds "dumb", just like it did when Bush made the claim.

Tell that to the people in Misrata, Ajdabiya, and Benghazi, you nitwit. Qadaffi's tanks and artillery were shelling the civilians in all these places.

They were getting shelled because Obama refused to act early on. He made the decision to let them be killed, to be raped and tortured in the most gruesome ways imaginable. He decided when this started to sacrifice them. Then he changed his mind because he couldn't bare the consequences. Probably even more people will die becuase of it.

He's like a doctor who, because of a mistake, misses treating you for gangrene; then when it comes time to cut off your leg becomes hysterical with the knife and leaves you a bloody corpse.

Tell that to the people in Misrata, Ajdabiya, and Benghazi, you nitwit. Qadaffi's tanks and artillery were shelling the civilians in all these places.

Qatar. Bahrain. Saudi Arabia. Syria.

You're a fucking putz. Guess Libya's civillians win the lottery! The rest of those civilians? Not so much.

Also France, Italy, the UK, the UN, NATO, and the Arab League. "Obama." You really sound dumb.

You're the one sounding dumb. NATO? In name only. Germany pulled its ships out. They're not participating. France and UK can only participate with our projection assistance and our Tomahawks taking out Libyan C&C assets to make it safe for the Euros to fly around dropping bombs on tanks in a no-fly zone. Arab League? Are you kidding me? They're sniping at us from the sidelines, per usual! UAE put a few planes in the deal. Whoopie! The Turks? Another joke. The rest of NATO? Albania, Belgium, Croatia, Czech, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg (LOL!), Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia & Spain. No show at the big rumble in Libya.

Obama is a fucking joke. Within hours of hostilities commencing, his "grand coalition" had broken down, bickering over who was going to be in charge. Or rather, not in charge, because nobody wanted to the one holding the bag with the nasty clusterfuck nestled inside.

I certainly condemn Obama for putting so many of our brave Tomahawk cruise missiles in harm's way, just to create safe flying conditions for stupid french fighter pilots. George Bush would never have made that calculation.

Jay-- can you list everything that Saddam was doing to his people at the time that Bush invaded? I'm looking for some correlation that the action was taken on humanitarian grounds, not as part of a neocon grand-strategy to "avenge" 9-11 and project American power in "the new century."

I love it when the talking point trolls post here, 'cos they get their asses handed to them so royally.

Feed the trolls! Stuff those useful idiot college kids and Obama ass-kissers full of real information till they wake up or grow up!

No jesting here; I have just about had it with these ignorant kids acting like this is a midnight dorm discussion after a few beers and a bong. Sarah Palin! Bush! Corporations! Obama-messiah! This is the future of our fucking country we're talking about, and as it goes along, the world, as well.

Research. kids. (That means more than Daily Kos and HuffPo.) Talk to some REAL working Americans, not just union thugs you meet at rallies you go to to fill your worthless lives. And either get the facts straight or shut up, 'cos we don't like community organizers and their groupies fucking up our country.

mechanical failure, but yeah, point is sound, having a military is dangerous to enlisted men. maybe we should scale back the military?

and that we are sending 2,000+ Marines

absolute horse-hockey, I will bet you a billion dollars not a single American boot touches Libyan soil. But I am sure you have a point, somewhere. carry on.

"Obama's bad because liberals said Bush was bad for doing a similar thing, that I formerly supported, so now I think the thing I supported is bad, because Obama's doing it, and liberals are hypocrites." -- conservatives, making a whole mess of sense.

Jay-- I am simply asking you to correlate any specific instance of civilian or humanitarian concerns that prompted the invasion of Iraq at the time it was invaded. Why was it invaded at that time and not at any time in the 20 years prior? Was there any humanitarian reason?

There was not. The invasion was predicated on the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction.

I am not persuaded. Nonetheless, I've always supported presidents when they sent troops into battle. They are the Commanders In Chief and the troops must follow orders except in exceedingly rare cases. I am not going to stop now. But I sure am holding my nose.

This might seem illogical and maybe it is. But I am a veteran of an unpopular war, and am now 100% disabled because of my service. I can't bring myself to believe any president would send our troops anywhere and subject them to death or serious bodily injury for political reasons he knows are doomed to failure.

Presidents and commanders in the field make mistakes. I can forgive such mistakes if those giving the orders are trying to serve the interests of our country. I cannot forgive them if those giving the orders are doing so for selfish personal political reasons.

"The invasion was predicated on the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction."

This intended to be a statement of fact and not an attempt to sound uncivil: you're either ignorant or a liar. That was not only just one of the list of reasons presented for the case for war, it actually (as you have phrased it) wasn't. Bush explicitly said the danger was not imminent and that he had no intention of allowing it to become imminent.

When an embargo was enforced upon Iraq, it was claimed that 5000 children a month were dying because of said embargo. Thus by invading Iraq and ending the embargo, Bush saved the lives of 5000 Iraqi children per month.......It is the democratic will of the Arab people that women be depreciated, Americans despised, and Jews killed. There's nobody over there who is actually on our side. It is interesting to note that, so far, the regimes that have been toppled in Tunisia, Egypt, (and earlier in Iran) were actually pro western and had some minimal concern for human life. Gaddafi and Assad might survive because they have no respect for western values and are willing to machine gun a square full of demonstrators....I think Obama wants it both ways. If things go right, it will be because of Obama's action. If things go wrong, it will be because of Gaddafi's brutality.....I don't see any happy ending. Gaddafi is a low bar, but it's possible that his replacement will be worse and, if he survives, his disposition will not be improved. I don't blame Obama for any of this, but he seems too reactive and aloof. He has no vision or certainty or even the wish to express our own self interest. He seems to be searching for that parallel universe where he does not get blamed and everything ends happily.

"And we have deniable SF teams there. Obama ordered them in, but pretends they aren't there."

Which, I think you would agree, is a good thing. Both them being there and denying it. I said to myself when this whole enterprise was rushed through the UN "I hope to God they've had the good sense to already have Special Forces there."

A braver speech would have painstakingly detailed the folly of military intervention, expressed our country's deep sympathy and great concern, and offered whatever humanitarian support that conceivably could relieve some of the suffering. That speech would have had the additional attribute of representing what I suspect Obama truly believes.

Crimso said... Which, I think you would agree, is a good thing. Both them being there and denying it.

I was responding to Fanglo, a lib who apparently now loves antiseptic KMA. Just bombing natives, no problem...

As a former rough man, with boots in my closet and a wife in uniform, I want to point out that we already have our guys on the ground and in harm's way and the President needs to make the case in public, cuz, before this is over, Widows at Ft Bragg will be getting CAO visits.

War is messy, and those buffoons at the National Security Advisors office think it's a video game.

The reasons he gives for the intervention are (a) to save innocent lives (good) and (b) to enforce a UN mandate (who cares).

The only problem I have here is that neither of the above two reasons constitutes one of the traditional exceptions to the Congressional war power. Obama states that he feels the intervention was in "the national interest", but there is no "national interest" exception; just a national security one.

One extra observation: whoever taped this positioned Obama left of center -- far left, originally, then center-left later in the speech. Let the metaphors and jokes commence.

No. "Our mission in Libya is clear and focused." "I have detailed the limited scope of this mission." He said things like this several times, but Barry and I are beyond me taking his word for things--I need specifics and citations. We didn't get specifics.

Nice tie, though. Purple. Red and blue mixed together. Unity. Non-partisanship. Or is he alluding to purple fingertips, the consequence of the last time we used military force to stop an oppressive dictator from massacring his people? Either I'm no good with symbolism or I'm getting mixed messages.

How 'bout China? Next time they start slaughtering protesters in the outer provinces, let's launch some Tomahawks into Beijing===========================And people were justly worried about the reckless Neocon John McCain urging US troops to Georgia to fight Russians for "our noble Georgian friends" or his repeated threats to bomb and go to war with Iran!For many, that was the "deal-breaker" with McCain. You can live with a dumb President, as long as they aren't trigger-happy like McCain.For people that thought two wars were enough - their votes went to Obama.Now we see Obama is "Neocon Lite"

As a former rough man, with boots in my closet and a wife in uniform, I want to point out that we already have our guys on the ground and in harm's way and the President needs to make the case in public, cuz, before this is over, Widows at Ft Bragg will be getting CAO visits.

War is messy, and those buffoons at the National Security Advisors office think it's a video game.

Eloquently put, sir. My compliments to you and your wife.

Coketown said...

No. "Our mission in Libya is clear and focused." "I have detailed the limited scope of this mission." He said things like this several times

well, he has finally figured out that he does need to look into the camera. now if he can get his head to stop twitching back and forth as if he were turning side to side to change teleprompters. and what is up with him scooted all the way to the left of the screen.

Gee, when I saw that Q-Daffy had spent BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS buying Tony Blair, and Sarkozy. And, then threatening Sarkozy with exposing Q-Daffy's bank transfers "if he didn't stay bought."

I now know, because of Hillary's quick action, those bank transfers will never see the light of day.

Libya: All coastline. But no beach front properties. No casinos. No tourism. No Starbucks. Just a terrified, though, small population of Libyans, living under a cult leader's paranoid rule. Where Q-Daffy's pictures were everywhere. Where people feared even to congregate at mosques. No schools to speak of. No coffee houses. And, living on a MOONSCAPE, where garbage was strewn about ...

I'm not surprised that a "small theater" was opened. We're not in Irak. We're not among people who hate us.

But his closer: everyone in Libya and around the world is grateful to America -- wait a minute, I thought he said we just handed over responsibility to NATO. So doesn't that mean the gratitude goes in that direction too?

Jay-- I am simply asking you to correlate any specific instance of civilian or humanitarian concerns that prompted the invasion of Iraq at the time it was invaded. Why was it invaded at that time and not at any time in the 20 years prior? Was there any humanitarian reason?

There was not. The invasion was predicated on the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction.

Those pesky UN resolutions and cease fires might have had something to do with it, too.

He's off-center, and the only thing you can see that's always in the shot, besides Obama, is that plaque in the background. I'm assuming that plaque shows the Presidential Seal. Probably that has to be there, maybe for legal reasons, maybe for tradition.

He's not at a desk. It looks like he's just sitting in a chair. There are some flags in the background. There's nothing that says "Oval Office"; so I suspect he was not in the White House when he recorded this. Maybe at the U.S. embassy in Brazil, maybe some other embassy.

The visual of him sitting in a chair, off-center, no image of a desk to form a border under him, brings out his Alfred E. Newman look It's a terrible visual image. He looks small, or young, like a teenager. It's as if he were wearing shorts.

What I know about Libya would fit in a thimble, but... it seems to me that the only way to explain the delay in taking action was that we wanted Ghadafi to whittle down certain factions before we took out his advanced weaponry. Now, how you rank order the various factions and their probability of success in Libya is something I don't care to think about. But here's hoping the fellows at the CIA have handicapped the array properly and called this one right. Maybe.

Jay-- I am simply asking you to correlate any specific instance of civilian or humanitarian concerns that prompted the invasion of Iraq at the time it was invaded

Here is what President Bush said before we invaded:

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

I certainly condemn Obama for putting so many of our brave Tomahawk cruise missiles in harm's way, just to create safe flying conditions for stupid french fighter pilots. George Bush would never have made that calculation.

LOL. I love it. Franglo is putting you silly tantrum throwers to shame.

Presidents and commanders in the field make mistakes. I can forgive such mistakes if those giving the orders are trying to serve the interests of our country. I cannot forgive them if those giving the orders are doing so for selfish personal political reasons.

Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow.

Why was it invaded at that time and not at any time in the 20 years prior? Was there any humanitarian reason?

Not a primary one to justify the effort of liberating Iraq.

The invasion was predicated on the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction.

Wrong. We invaded Iraq because of 9-11. They had WMD programs (nuke, bio, chem) and were supplying terrorists for proxy attacks against the West. Al Queda opened our eyes to the prospect of a nuclear (or other WMD) 9-11.

For those who feel a need to waste their time responding to RitmoLitard, via Pogo:

"it's worth reposting a Ritmo comment from one earlier last week, displaying what he's up to at Althouse, and why he comments here:"

Ritmo Brasileiro said...It's good to know that the stupidest threads are just ripe for the threadjacking. I'll be sure to leave a trail of turds on every one of the brain droppings here that suit my fancy. Getting you shit-eaters to complain about the taste after opening your mouths wide and saying "Ahhhh..." to every bad idea under the sun is very satisfying, I must admit.- 10/16/10 10:28 AM

Ritmo is just here to troll you and spike threads critical of the Left. Your time is better spent arguing with a fork.

Looks us in the eyes LOL... it's pretty obvious from the video that he's looking beside the camera at the script.

Usually, public figure politician types are better at that sort of thing so it's not as obvious. I'm not surprised anymore that Obama's again proven all hype and disappointing performance, even in so menial a part of the job as reading a prompter convincingly.

“I suffer no illusions about Moammar Gadhafi. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions. … He’s a bad guy. The world and the Libyan people would be better off without him.”

“Gadhafi poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors … the Libyan economy is in shambles … the Libyan military is a fraction of its former strength and … in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.”

I see that Cannonfodder Fen, one of Abu Ghraib's brightest and best, went on leave for R & R from his usual regimen of raping Arab men, torturing their women and killing their children, in order to post his very own manifesto.

He does this a bit obsessively, you see. When your life consists of nothing more than bullying people, well something that trivial is all you've got.

If Fen were capable of writing his own screeds, he'd be the Unabomber. Unfortunately, we must instead be subjected to his obsessive plagiarism and inability to come up with any argument whatsoever.

Just imagine the reaction by ignorant people like you if President Bush said that cockpit doors would be steel reinforced and pilots should carry handguns and aggressive searches should take place at airports prior to 9/11.

Holy shit, it's like watching him inside his head voting present. Erkle, is clearly speaking out of both sides of his mouth and both are lies. The Muslim Brotherhood is salivating at the thought Qaddafi might be gone to open up a power vacuum for them to operate in. Is this what Erkle is trying to facilitate? Because they are already at work in Egypt. I've already heard that AQ is working with the Brotherhood to send their tentacles of influence into the region. This guy is an incompetent ass who clearly does not understand the nuance that is changing beneath his notice.